Hi,
On Sun, May 23, 2010 at 07:33:48PM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> On 24/05/10 at 01:15 +0900, Osamu Aoki wrote:
> > Really, issue is "Debian does not have reasonable rule for hijacking or
> > automatic orphaning".
>
> I fully agree. There are many packages that are staying with totally
> outd
Hi!
On Sun, May 23, 2010 at 10:01:22AM +0200, Jan Hauke Rahm wrote:
> On Sun, May 23, 2010 at 08:40:44AM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> > On 22/05/10 at 15:07 +0200, Ana Guerrero wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > It is good to care for packages from people who are currently too busy and
> > > making
Hi Jari (also Tony and Nobuhiro):
On Sun, May 23, 2010 at 04:21:30PM +0300, Jari Aalto wrote:
>
I am not going to answer you detailed to this email because you are trying
to explain you did nothing wrong and I agree you did nothing wrong
trying to fix bug and improve the quality in the archive
On 24/05/10 at 01:15 +0900, Osamu Aoki wrote:
> Really, issue is "Debian does not have reasonable rule for hijacking or
> automatic orphaning".
I fully agree. There are many packages that are staying with totally
outdated upstream versions simply because the maintainer went inactive,
and MIA was n
Hi,
On Sat, May 22, 2010 at 06:23:25PM +0100, Neil Williams wrote:
> On Sat, 22 May 2010 09:32:02 -0700
> tony mancill wrote:
>
> > I sponsored the upload of a number of Jari's fixes. You state that
> > they were disruptive, but I'm wondering to whom. The uploads were to
> > delayed queues and
On Sun, May 23, 2010 at 05:09:32PM +0300, Jari Aalto wrote:
> - non-active maintainer and for case like: years old package, 6+
> months old FTBFS, or ancient 3.[56].x policy in debian/control?
On -qa, we tried to define some time ago work-flow for dealing with
cases like that (essentiall
Alexander Wirt writes:
>> Jari Aalto schrieb am Sunday, den 23. May 2010:
>>
>> [When package was not maintained]
>>
>> In addition to fixing the RC bugs, minor updates were usually done at
>> the same time. This was done for the reasons that in case the packages
>> were later orphaned or the main
On Sun, May 23, 2010 at 03:25:11PM +0200, Alexander Wirt wrote:
> > The DEP1 does't specifially encourage fixing anything else than the BUG
> > at hand, and that's a very good rule for actively maintained packages.
> That dep thingys are no policy. imho these uploads violate the nmu policy.
Well,
Jari Aalto schrieb am Sunday, den 23. May 2010:
Hi,
*snip*
> In addition to fixing the RC bugs, minor updates were usually done at
> the same time. This was done for the reasons that in case the packages
> were later orphaned or the maintainer were MIA, it would be more
> desireable to have a we
Ana Guerrero writes:
>
> It is good to care for packages from people who are currently too busy and
> making NMUs to fix critical/very important bugs. However, lately I have been
> seeing a lot of NMUs that are being very disruptive
Hi Ana,
The packages I took under close look have been carefull
On Sat, May 22, 2010 at 06:33:41PM +0100, Neil Williams wrote:
> On Sat, 22 May 2010 19:20:42 +0200
> Julien BLACHE wrote:
>
> > Either it's a QA upload or it's a NMU, but it can't be "a bit of
> > both".
> >
> > If the package is effectively not maintained anymore, it's up to the
> > MIA team t
On Sun, May 23, 2010 at 08:40:44AM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> On 22/05/10 at 15:07 +0200, Ana Guerrero wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > It is good to care for packages from people who are currently too busy and
> > making NMUs to fix critical/very important bugs. However, lately I have been
> > seeing a
On 22/05/10 at 18:33 +0100, Neil Williams wrote:
> Does the MIA team take note of the WNPP reports of recently orphaned
> packages or is there a chance that an inactive maintainer whose only
> package is orphaned and then uploaded using QA, could drop off the
> radar of the MIA team? (Leaving the k
On 22/05/10 at 15:07 +0200, Ana Guerrero wrote:
> Hi,
>
> It is good to care for packages from people who are currently too busy and
> making NMUs to fix critical/very important bugs. However, lately I have been
> seeing a lot of NMUs that are being very disruptive [0], you have a couple of
> exam
Quoting Ana Guerrero (a...@debian.org):
> I know this is done with the best intentions but if you think the package
> is in bad shape or neglected by the maintainer then it might better write
> to mia@, debian-qa@ or open a bug asking whether the package should be
> orphaned (or even removed).
On Sat, 22 May 2010 19:20:42 +0200
Julien BLACHE wrote:
> Either it's a QA upload or it's a NMU, but it can't be "a bit of
> both".
>
> If the package is effectively not maintained anymore, it's up to the
> MIA team to investigate and eventually decide to orphan the package.
Do we have to wait
On Sat, 22 May 2010 09:32:02 -0700
tony mancill wrote:
> I sponsored the upload of a number of Jari's fixes. You state that
> they were disruptive, but I'm wondering to whom. The uploads were to
> delayed queues and the maintainer notified via the BTS, and in all
> cases where the maintainer ac
tony mancill wrote:
Hi,
> I view the "absolute minimal changes" NMU process as designed for (and
> more appropriate for) actively maintained packages. That is, the NMU
Either it's a QA upload or it's a NMU, but it can't be "a bit of
both".
If the package is effectively not maintained anymore,
Hi Ana,
I'm happy to start the discussion.
I sponsored the upload of a number of Jari's fixes. You state that they
were disruptive, but I'm wondering to whom. The uploads were to delayed
queues and the maintainer notified via the BTS, and in all cases where
the maintainer actually ACK'd the bug
Hi,
It is good to care for packages from people who are currently too busy and
making NMUs to fix critical/very important bugs. However, lately I have been
seeing a lot of NMUs that are being very disruptive [0], you have a couple of
examples below [1]. (This is not against Jari or Nobihuro, they
20 matches
Mail list logo
